2
$\begingroup$

Consider the square $\Omega = (0,\pi) \times (0,\pi/2) \ni (r,\theta)$ endowed with the Riemannian metric \begin{equation} f^2 \big(\mathrm{d} r^2 + \sin^2(r) \, \mathrm{d} \theta^2 \big), \end{equation} where \begin{equation} f = (\sin r)^4 (\sin 2 \theta)^2. \end{equation} This arises when quotienting the unit sphere $S^6 \subset \mathbf{R}^7 = \mathbf{R}^6 \times \mathbf{R}$ by the group action of $SO(3) \times SO(3)$, with $f$ being to the volume of the fibre lying above $(r,\theta)$.

Let $\gamma$ be a geodesic segment with $\gamma(0) \in \partial \Omega$. Can $\gamma$ admit a bounded, normal Jacobi field $J$ with $J(s) \not \to 0$ as $s \to 0$?

I am confused about this point because of the following two observations.

Hsiang [Hsi83] explains that the geodesic equation is uniquely solvable for every point $(r,\pi/2) \in \partial \Omega$ with $0 < r < \pi$, and the geodesic $\gamma_r$ is orthogonal to the boundary at $\gamma_r(0) = (r,\pi/2)$. Fix some $r_0$, and let $\gamma := \gamma_{r_0}$. Varying $r$ yields a one-parameter family of geodesics, which induces the normal Jacobi field $J = \frac{\partial \gamma_r} {\partial r} $ on $\gamma$ with $J(0) = 1, J'(0) = 0$.

However, the Jacobi equation along $\gamma$ is $J'' + K_g J = 0$. Because $K \to +\infty$ near the boundary, the only bounded solutions should have $J(s) \to 0$ as $s \to 0$.

Wu-Yi Hsiang. Minimal cones and the spherical Bernstein problem. Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 118 (1983), pp. 61-73.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I don't think your analyses are correct.

Consider the following toy problem which has the same boundary behavior as yours: let domain be $(r,\theta)\in \mathbb{R}\times (0,\infty)$ and set the metric to be $\theta^4 (dr^2 + d\theta^2)$.

The geodesic equation becomes (after computing explicitly the Christoffel symbols)

$$ \ddot{r} + \frac{4}{\theta} \dot{r}\dot{\theta} = 0 $$

and

$$ \ddot{\theta} + \frac{2}{\theta} (\dot{\theta}\dot{\theta} - \dot{r}\dot{r}) = 0 $$

The first equation shows (as expected, since $\partial_r$ is Killing) that $ \theta^4 \dot{r} $ is a constant of motion. The second equation shows that any critical point of $\theta$ is a local minimum, and hence if $\liminf \theta = 0$ we must have $\theta$ is monotonic decreasing. The second equation can be rearranged to read

$$ \frac{d}{ds} (\theta^2 \dot{\theta}) = \frac{2C^2}{\theta} > 0 $$

where $C$ is the constant of motion for $\dot{r}$. this shows that $|\dot{\theta}| < \frac{C'}{\theta^2}$. Hence

$$ \Big|\frac{\dot{r}}{\dot{\theta}}\Big| \geq \frac{C''}{\theta^2} $$

which shows that the only bounded geodesic has $C = \dot{r} = 0$ and $\theta^2\dot{\theta}= C'''$, which implies (after reparametrization)

$$ r = r_0 , \theta(s) = \sqrt[3]{s} $$

Up to this part, we see that our model problem has the same behavior as Hsiang's: the only geodesics that terminate on the boundary are those that are normal to the boundary.

The Jacobi field $J$ therefore has the form $J(s) = \partial_r$ everywhere (again, not surprising, since Killing fields are always Jacobi). We can normalize the geodesics so that the velocity vector is $\theta^{-2}\partial_\theta$. So the first derivative of $J$ is

$$ J' = \theta^{-2}\nabla_{\partial_\theta} \partial_r = \theta^{-2} \Gamma_{r\theta}^r \partial_r = 2\theta^{-3} \partial_r $$

and

$$ J'' = \theta^{-2}\nabla_{\partial_\theta} J' = -2\theta^{-6} \partial_r $$

So we see two things:

  1. $J'(0) \neq 0$ (contrary to your claim)
  2. Both $J'$ and $J''$ blow up (both in coordinate expression and in norm) as you approach the boundary.

The first claim should also be expected: even in the standard, non-singular geometry, if you launch a family of normal geodesics from a hypersurface, then the Jacobi field generated should satisfy $J'(0) = S_{\gamma(0)}J(0)$, where $S$ is the shape operator / Wirtinger map / second fundamental form of the hypersurface. Unless you have a geodesic boundary, in general $J'$ is not zero.

So no, other than the incorrect claim on the initial velocity of the Jacobi field, there does not appear to be any contradiction.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.